Hello Dan,
I'll try to answer; it's quite possible that Paul will correct me.
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 11:55:27AM -0500, Dan Manthey wrote:
> checking for a type like uint_fast32_t... (This may take a while.)
> checking for blah...
> ...
> checking finished for a type like uint_fast32_t... found
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Gnu coding standards people, with a
suggestion that there should be a DEPENDENCIES file, so that
pre-requisites are listed in one place, and being a separate file
it may encourage people to include this information. The suggestion
was received positively by RMS, and
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Gnu coding standards people, with a
suggestion that there should be a DEPENDENCIES file, so that
It would be nice if autoconf did that for itself. I don't recall a
"recent" release which satisfied that goal (and
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Gnu coding standards people, with a
suggestion that there should be a DEPENDENCIES file, so that
It would be nice if autoconf did that for itself. I don't recall a "recent
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Gnu coding standards people, with a
suggestion that there should be a DEPENDENCIES file, so that
It would be nice if autoconf di
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> This message is a request to implement the suggestion that configure
> produce a listing, when it finishes, of the packages needed to build
> this package
That would be a nice thing to have, but I don't see how to implement
it easily. Perha
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Thomas Dickey wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
A few weeks ago I wrote to the Gnu coding standards people, with a
suggestion that there should be a DEPENDENCIES file, so that
It would be nice if autoconf di
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This message is a request to implement the suggestion that configure
produce a listing, when it finishes, of the packages needed to build
this package
That would be a nice thing to have, but I don't see ho
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi folks,
Is it known when Autoconf 2.59c will be due for release? (Not to
pressure anyone!; I just need to plan ahead for my own releases since
I intend to depend upon it).
Thanks,
Roger
- --
Roger Leigh
Printing on GNU/Linux? h
It is clear to me the intention of the AC_FUNC_MALLOC in protecting
programs from non-conforming malloc() implementations. This
conservative feature is making it difficult to cross compile packages.
It would be helpful if there was an option to ./configure to tell the
script that even though this
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
I think that at present there is no structured dependency
information in the ac files from which configure and so on are
built. I would suggest that some directives for expressing
dependencies be added, so that tsort could be used to determine
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
totally wrong though, since failure to detect a header or library could
actually be due to an earlier error in the configuration process
(config.log needs to be carefully inspected).
Tsort. If an earlier thing fails for a given branch of dep
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
I think that at present there is no structured dependency
information in the ac files from which configure and so on are
built. I would suggest that some directives for expressing
dependencies be adde
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
totally wrong though, since failure to detect a header or library could
actually be due to an earlier error in the configuration process
(config.log needs to be carefully inspected).
Tsort. If an e
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> As to my providing patches for this: well, if I was familiar with
> the internals, then it would be practical for me to do that.
Perhaps you could find someone who is willing to implement the
proposal? I'm afraid I lack the time. And it se
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
Alas, it is not that easy. If you have 16 possible libraries you need to
link against, it may be that library 5 provides what you were looking for
(and need), but library 14 needed something else from library 5 (maybe
optional symbols, or an
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
If it is known to be provided by a package, suggest that package.
It should not quit: it should look for other things it needs.
Then list the info before exiting.
configure script simply record that the function is not available and the
app
rec
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It would be helpful if there was an option to ./configure to tell the
> > script that even though this is a cross compilation, I know that the
> > malloc function is good.
>
> Can't you se
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It would be helpful if there was an option to ./configure to tell the
> script that even though this is a cross compilation, I know that the
> malloc function is good.
Can't you set ac_cv_func_malloc_0_nonnull in your environment?
That sort of thing? It'
Roger Leigh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it known when Autoconf 2.59c will be due for release?
Sorry, no.
___
Autoconf mailing list
Autoconf@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
Yes, so library 5 is a dependency of library 14.
That's what I'm trying to express (in my later post).
However, it is not a *known* (to the configure script developer) dependency.
The failure is due t
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:15:36PM -0800, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > It would be helpful if there was an option to ./configure to tell the
> > script that even though this is a cross compilation, I know that the
> > malloc function is good.
>
> Can't you se
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
However, it is not a *known* (to the configure script developer)
dependency. The failure is due to an indirect dependency.
In which case we are no worse off than we are now, but where things
are known, we are better off.
Yes, indeed.
Your ideas
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
configure script simply record that the function is not available and
the app
record it to announce at the end and move on...
More often than not, if something important is missing, the configure scri
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Paul Eggert wrote:
Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
As to my providing patches for this: well, if I was familiar with
the internals, then it would be practical for me to do that.
Part of the problem here is that your proposal is almost diametrically
opposed
Marc Singer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The trouble is that I want to be able to cross compile a large
> number of packages without going through the effort to patch
> and add this function.
If programs fail because of this, it's because they're not using
AC_FUNC_MALLOC properly: they are not m
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 01:24:06AM +, Hugh Sasse Staff Elec Eng wrote:
> No. I'm proposing that Autoconf tell me as much as possible when
> things go wrong. "Possible" includes knowledge that the authors of a
> configuration have. "As much" includes not dying prematurely,
> using dependency
27 matches
Mail list logo
